Hashman and Harrup v the United Kingdom - 25594/94 [2011] ECHR 1658 (14 September 2011)

The binding-over order imposed on the applicants was too vague and did not comply with the requirement that restrictions on freedom of expression be 'prescribed by law', resulting in a violation of Article 10 of the Convention.

Source-derived case information.

Citation: [2011] ECHR 1658
Parties: Applicant: Hashman; Applicant: Harrup; Respondent: United Kingdom
Jurisdiction: European Union
Judgment Date: 14 September 2011
Procedural Posture: Application to the European Court of Human Rights / Execution of Judgment; Supervision by Committee of Ministers
Outcome: Case closed; execution of judgment complete.
Legal Topics: Freedom of Expression, Binding Over Orders, Prescribed by Law Requirement

Human Rights Law Criminal Procedure Freedom of Expression Binding Over Orders Prescribed by Law Requirement

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1

Parties

Hashman

Applicant

Harrup

Applicant

United Kingdom

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application to the European Court of Human Rights / Execution of Judgment; Supervision by Committee of Ministers

Legal Issues

1 Whether the binding-over order imposed on the applicants complied with the requirement of being 'prescribed by law' under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Case closed; execution of judgment complete.

Orders

Payment of just satisfaction to applicants.
No further individual measures required as the binding-over order expired.

About this LexChat collection

Publisher and coverage

LexChat is published by Esheria. Coverage reflects the case law currently mapped from identified source collections; it may be incomplete, delayed, or later corrected. The official source controls where it differs from this research page.

AI and research method

Source-derived facts are shown separately from AI-generated material. If an AI summary is available, it is explicitly labelled and remains a non-authoritative research aid.

Corrections and reporting

Report a source mismatch, factual issue, personal-data concern, or licensing question to support@esheria.co.ke. Include this page's URL and the supporting official source so the record can be reviewed, corrected, restricted, or withdrawn.

Legal-information disclaimer

LexChat provides legal information and research tools, not legal advice. Verify currency, status, citations, and jurisdiction with authoritative sources and a qualified professional where appropriate.